Agenda item

Outline application for up to 282 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access (Amended Description April 2024)

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for Outline application for up to 282 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access (Amended Description April 2024) at North East Industrial Estate, Stephenson Road, Peterlee, Durham (for copy see file of minutes).

C Harvey, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included a site location plan, aerial photographs and site photographs from various locations.  The presentation also included indicative site layout plans from the original proposal in 2014 and an updated site layout plan with a reduced number of dwellings.

Councillor McDonnell was ward member of the adjacent Peterlee Ward and addressed the Committee in support of the application.  It had been ten years since the Council had given notice to businesses of their intention to convert the site into housing.  There had been varied responses from businesses however one of the longstanding businesses had been forced to relocate quickly and at a considerable expense, to minimise risk to the business.  Fortunately, they had moved to another premises and continued to expand and contribute to the local economy.  Councillor McDonnell felt there had been failings by the previous administration concerning the site which had led to considerable delays.  The subsequent deterioration and derelict nature of the site combined with anti social behaviour, flytipping and arson had blighted residents lives for many years.  The proposal would create good quality affordable housing, which the area desperately needed.  Other parts of the estate had already had houses built and she urged the Committee to support the application.

Councillor Shaw refuted the comments pertaining to the previous administration made by Councillor McDonnell, citing that they were inaccurate. Councillor Shaw highlighted that much work and negotiation had been undertaken in bringing forward the application for consideration.  S Reed, Planning & Development Manager confirmed that negotiations between the applicants for the scheme, local businesses and officers of the Council had been significant.  In addition to the relocation businesses there had beenviability issues and complex land ownership issues.

With regards to the conflict with CDP policies 6F and 21, Councillor Elmer asked whether the insufficient pedestrian connections to the nearest facilities and amenities would be addressed through the final application.  He noted that the travel plan officers had not responded and was concerned that this volume of housing would create car dependency.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that pedestrian connectivity was an issue that Officers would attempt to boost as much as possible.  He reminded Members that this was a committed housing site, unlike a recent application for a windfall site which was recently brought before Members which also had sustainability concerns.

Councillor Atkinson confirmed that the development would provide affordable housing and add to the economics of the area.  He noted that no objections had been received and moved the recommendation for approval.

Councillor Jopling confirmed that it was pleasant to receive an application on a brownfield site, to develop something unsightly into housing.  Councillor Elmer had made a valid point about connectivity and she hoped that this would be addressed at reserved matters.  She seconded the recommendation to approve the application.

Councillor Bell was familiar with site and despite the reasons for the delay, it was a positive application for those who lived in the area and he was in support.

Councillor Shaw confirmed that he was in support of the application.  It had been a long process to get to this stage, but he agreed that it had been a blot on the landscape for many years and was delighted that it was finally being determined.

Councillor Elmer supported the principle of the application and appreciated there had been a viability assessment however he expressed his frustration that a development of this scale could not find a way to make affordable housing viable.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the viability assessment had concluded that if relevant planning policies and requirements were fully applied, it would lead to a deficit of minus £4,106,041 and this had been agreed by an independent partner.  However, it was noted that Members would normally seek more affordable housing.

Resolved

That the application be APPROVED subject to a S106 planning obligation to secure the provision & retention of an offsite recreational open space area and the conditions outlined in the report.